TRYNE social decision system

You are important to the world.
You are unique puzzle peace.
Your thoughts merge millions of others,
forming ideal solution. This is TRYNE.

TRYNE is open social instrument, that is:
- to develop and make effective decisions
- designed for thousands of people to work at one question synergetically
- available to everyone
- protected against manipulations and interventions
- non-profit, doesn’t belong to any groups

Such a tool does not currently exist. TRYNE project is a social initiative to create and promote it. Humanity has internet, servers, personal devices and the will of changes. We have a vision and a prototype that is undergoing the first tests. The future starts today. Read more at http://tryne.org

What is the difference between this, and the human brain as such a tool (otherwise purported not to exist)?

Why can’t the human brain develop and make effective decisions?

edit: I downloaded your source code and checked it out. It seems to be a simple public-use question/answer app. You have put a lot of woowoo (hi, Mr. Shermer!) on top of it, with fancy action graphs and all kinds of fancy words, and I don’t understand why. Also your personal comments (e.g. http://maxd.tryne.org/2012/02/why-i-do-tryne.html I also posted a comment there) suggest some kind of personal mania. For example “It’s such a pain to live with the knowledge that inside my head is the key to the new world, to the mankind freedom – and I still do nothing”

If this is true, you are humanity’s savior, one out of billions. Otherwise, if you are just another dude with a bunch of ideas, then it is false.

Of course, in some trivial way we all have a key to the new world. But aggrandized claims are not an honest way to go about helping others. Good luck either way.

What is the difference between this, and the human brain as such a tool (otherwise purported not to exist)?

Sure, human brain is the best tool for decisions so far. But people tend to make decision collectively, even invented democracy for that. But the problem is, that the more people we get involved, the harder is to make a decision. Debates and shouting in real life, flood and offtopic in Internet. Thats why small groups are to make decisions, thats why the mankind stay separated in general.

But imagine, that there is a tool, that gives us a power to discuss, solve and make decision of some problem all together, with thousands of people involved collaborating effectively. Nearly every aspect of our life can benefit much of fast and effective decisions.

I claim, that mankind is technically ready to create such a tool. It’s strange, that we are not creating it. I just say: “Lets try to make it, all together!” - and put the first brick.

QuakePhil - 03 February 2012 07:57 AM

It seems to be a simple public-use question/answer app.

By the way, you can check it working here - http://proto.tryne.org/
Sure, its similar to Answer-sites, but what happens to them if people submit thousand answers to one question? Or some question turns to be too hard for a person or small group?

P.S. Sure, some of my words may look like mania, but thats ok for everything unusual. By the way, I was telling about my feelings at that abstract, thats all.

I agree with your observations that society is full of noise (pop culture, etc)

But I’m not exactly sure how the tryne tool avoids this chaos. In particular, I’m not sure what differences it has from other similar tools, such as yahoo answers, stack overflow, etc.

Another question I have is, exactly what do you mean by “decision”? Most of our day to day decisions are trivial so I don’t think this tool applies; therefore, exactly what decisions are we talking about here?

Personally, I believe the best way to avoid flooding, arguments, etc (for me debates are not about winning; debates are about learning) is to create an exclusive community which selects its members. I’m part of one such community (for video gaming, of all things) and it is day and night compared to the public video game servers out there, which exist as a direct byproduct of their public nature, just like tryne apparently is.

- How to teach our children?
- How many taxes should we pay?
- What products should we eat?
- How our money will be spent?

... and so on. Sure, this are political questions, but there are a lot of them, shaping our lives day by day.

We used to solve such a questions via “exclusive community”, delegating the right to decide to some group of experts / politics / scientists whatever. We don’t trust them really. We don’t feel happy with their decisions.

What sort of the community do you participate? Is it private server with invitations?

“How many taxes” and “How our money” seem to be a related question of global economy. The question then becomes - why should the current directors of global economy (filthy rich dudes) care about the decisions reached by tryne?

The other questions are perhaps more applicable, but again its the same question. Why should the masses who are mis-educating their children and eating at mcdonalds every day care about the decisions reached by tryne?

(I play with shacktac, and I also play in the small quakeworld community which wasn’t what I originally thought of as a closed community, but now thinking about it, I guess it qualifies as well; although strictly speaking it is open but small. The former is the premiere example for me, though)

Why should the masses who are mis-educating their children and eating at mcdonalds every day care about the decisions reached by tryne?

It’s a matter of proven decision quality and confidence. Sure, it will not appear at once. Time passes and people see, that decisions from TRYNE are fundamentally better and independent. They start to take part in TRYNE processes, because its more meaningful, then click likes at social networks. They believe more with each decision.

As the time goes, people will count the TRYNE decisions as legitimate opinion of majority. Its like democracy without delegating everything to some chosen people and other downsides. Filthy rich dudes will face not limb mass, but solid multi-million team, that is dramatically smarter then all their groups, analytics and consultants.

Or maybe that’s just beautiful fantasies. Worth trying anyway :-)

QuakePhil - 03 February 2012 11:06 AM

I play with shacktac

I have taken a look, really great idea. Then you know, what does the good team mean… There are some natural matters, that limit size of effective team. Imagine, that this reasons are gone and we can make teams with infinite members number, with infinite addictive power. We don’t need to split ourselves anymore.

That’s another thing I think is fundamentally incorrect. Sure, it would be great theoretically if we could all be an interconnected mutually beneficial hive mind.

But it seems much more evident that instead of a hive mind, our society has evolved to be maximally efficient in clumps of a hundred people or so. Sure America is 300,000,000 or whatever the number is, but it is nonsensical and irrational to truly identify with more than about a 100 people.

One the one hand I can honestly say that philosophically I am beyond national boundaries, and that I am part of one human race, however many billions of us there are. On the other hand, I can’t escape the fact that most of the people I meet I will not like, appreciate, and/or respect, and only within a clump of 10, 50, 100, maybe 200 tops, can I ever be a candid and fully integrated part. If the clump starts to become 1000, or 10000, or 300,000,000, then I will not be an integrated part, and I will create mental and physical barriers between myself and that clump, and if I don’t I will be taken advantage of and naturally selected against.

So it looks like you are trying to go beyond this (natural) limit. Good luck!

Phil, you are right. I’d say even more, the limit of ~100 is quite theoretical too. Average person has around 5 really close friends. Teams with more then 5-6 people start involuntarily to divide itself into parts.

These limits are shaping the society today. But there is another way to consolidate, when the whole group is moving with the speed of the fastest members, when weak ones doesn’t harm the process, but still do some tiny contribution. Why neglect them?